And most poor people prefer free food over no food. You are right that most would prefer a dignified job and agency over their lives, but to say that people prefer to starve than to accept aid, or that it is just fine as a matter of policy to let people starve (or die of diarrhea as hundreds of indian children do each day as they don't have access to clean water) is just absurd. No one wants to watch their children die.
Again, i dont doubt your lived experience, but please do reflect on your views and whether they even remotely reflect reality.
Do you really believe the survival of our species is at stake?
There have been 1754 covid-19 deaths per million people in the USA since the start of the pandemic [0], a seemingly reliable number. That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks.
Part of the problem may be that not everyone is that scared. Living in democracies we need to respect that.
I don't think people realize how bad it got and just how quickly we forget and forgive those who were in charge that led us down the path that almost led to certain failure.
So yeah, our species may have survived if you want to frame it as such to debate the words used more than the reality of what the words meant.
I intentionally chose the words I said because it was a disaster and to be honest, we still haven't really learned from it.
Ok, maybe we should back up. I objected to your "survival of your species" characterization of the pandemic, but am happy to agree to leave that aside, some hyperbole in the heat of the moment I guess. I wasn't sure, because it appears there are people who feel that way. Like you said, people overreacted, buying guns, stockpiling, afraid to leave the house, etc. Some people are still overreacting, expecting the worst at every turn.
As the science and data continue to roll in we find that this is not as bad as was once feared. Lately I've been reading the recent articles/studies on how this is an airborne aerosol, which means the cloth masks everyone have been wearing may not have made much of a difference. The CDC now appears to be trying to talk people down, letting them know that surface transmission is not a significant factor, that we don't need to wear masks outside, etc. It's may be the case where find out in the end that the lockdowns were a waste of time and that aggressive contact tracing was the only thing that worked.
This thread got into talking about democracy and lockdowns. A lot lot of people don't think this is as big a disaster as you do. 1 out of 570 people dead, skewing older with comorbidities, doesn't strike many people as a disaster. Many people don't accept the premise that the lockdowns are worth it, and therefore don't want to spend the money supporting those same lockdowns like you suggested. They would rather live their lives as close to normal as practical. They don't feel the need to assign political blame for a pandemic that caught almost the entire planet by surprise. They have a vote, the same as you. They feel just as strongly as you. Difficult situation, eh?
Your assumption is that what the USA went through, with the shutdowns is the worst-case scenario. I posit that it is not - things could have been far worse in terms of death, as well as second- and third-order effects on the economy, jobs and food security.
There is zero science supporting this. In fact, to the contrary, experts from the beginning expected this to peter out on its own [0]:
> 2019-nCoV joins the four coronaviruses now circulating in people. “I can imagine a scenario where this becomes a fifth endemic human coronavirus,” ... “We don’t pay much attention to them because they’re so mundane”
> Odds: Moderate. “I think there is a reasonable probability that this becomes the fifth community-acquired coronavirus,” Adalja said, something he expanded on in his blog. Webby agreed: “I have a little bit of hope that, OK, we’ll put up with a couple of years of heightened [2019-nCoV] activity before settling down to something like the other four coronaviruses.”
> Odds: Pretty good. What we may be seeing “is the emergence of a new coronavirus … that could very well become another seasonal pathogen that causes pneumonia,”
Your statement about "survival of the species" seems outlandish, according the the science I read. Your above reply "things could have been worse" is not an adequate defensse of such an alarmist statement.
Do you have any references supporting your position? oit appears so far that you do not.
You should keep in mind that not everyone shares your paranoia and want to get on with as much of their lives as possible. We live in democracies and other people will rightfully object to you imposing your views on all of them without better justification.
[0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...
That wasn't me saying that; I'm not gp. I was only objecting to your comment that implicitly assumed a linear effect, and therefore concludes that things wouldn't have been bad without shutdowns
>> That works out to 1 out of 570 people hat have died of covid.
I do not think the "survival of the species" was at stake, but our 2020 lifestyles were at stake. Things could have gotten much worse, in a non-linear, exponential manner.
Systemic collapse does not mean societal collapse or the end of humanity, or even civilization. The collapse will be a horrible affair and it might take centuries to get back on track if things get real bad. Humanity would still be around, though, and we're not threatened as a species.
Why did you bring up systemic collapse? You made some pretty broad statements. Things like food shortages and civil unrest happen all the time, for lots of reasons. There's Syria, Somalia, the former Soviet Union, the Arab Spring, everywhere a war is fought, etc. It wouldn't be surprising for this pandemic (and/or lockdowns) to tip some country over the edge, somewhere. But maybe not. Hasn't happened yet.
I think it's curious that you had to throw a new worst-case scenario out there. I hear you saying "ok, the species will survive, but we could, worst case, collapse, horrible, for centuries". What are you thinking? Do you think something like that might happen in a developed country? Or in India? Wouldn't hospitals just triage patients, letting the old and sick die? Aren't most health care workers already vaccinated? Is it reasonable to think that a disease that has killed less than 0.175% of the population (USA, 1 in 570), mostly older and/or sicker, could possibly cause the collapse of important supplies or cause food shortages?
Do you ever wonder why some people seem to have a tendency to dwell on worst case scenarios, even ones that are pretty marginal? I assume that it's because we are emotional creatures, and fear is a powerful emotion. Probably good for the survival of the species :-)
> Do you think something like that might happen in a developed country?
Do I beleive it could happen? Yes, but it's quite unlikely, and it requires a series of fuck-ups from a lot of people. It's also more likely to happen in undeveloped countries:
> It wouldn't be surprising for this pandemic (and/or lockdowns) to tip some country over the edge, somewhere. But maybe not.
> Wouldn't hospitals just triage patients, letting the old and sick die?
I think you underestimate how pissed off people might get if the system they entrusted their relatives' care to suddenly decided to just let them manage on their own.
On a local level, things are messier - as you say, local governments fall every now and then and covid is just about as likely to trigger it as any other major issue.
I find it far more likely that it won't happen,though.
As for worst-case scenarios in general, I think it's simply a way for us to plan ahead. "Shit will happen. It might be rough. We'll manage because we though of it beforehand." And yes, it' probably good for the survival of the species. :D
You're trying to highlight something that doesn't exist.
You can get out of being poor. You cannot get out of being dalit[0].
> While their struggles are real they do not see themselves as losers but rather see themselves as strugglers who will eventually make it some day.
Only about 20% of Indians can afford to have even aspirations. About 66% cannot. 18% struggle to even survive. Newspaper? They would eat it. [1] (data from 2016)
> They then propose that government must help them. Guess what, other than a small fraction of poor people most DO NOT want that help.
The relationship between the government and the people in India is very different from what you are probably used to. It's true that many people in India don't want the government's "help", but that's because this "help" is usually exploitation. They'd be lucky to be left alone. [2]
> If people are angry and fed up and willing to risk their lives
You have to pass a certain threshold of awareness to be categorized as "willing". Most of these people have no idea what the consequences of their actions are. Almost a third(!) of the women in India cannot even read or write. [3]
> What we need is some humility to recognize that just because someone else has less money than we do, that does not reduce their self worth or gives us the right to know "what they need".
Should the same litmus test apply to your post about the Indian condition?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit#Discrimination [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/482584/india-households-... [2] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/governance/why-india-s-p... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India
> Should the same litmus test apply to your post about the Indian condition?
Obviously. But my post is about not making assumptions about what poor people want and rather trust that they have an agency.
How many of the people that truly have no food to eat will go to vote?
Or, how easy are they to corrupt?
Americans love getting free shit, and hate giving anything away. We love getting tax cuts & refunds, stimulus checks, welfare, food stamps. But when we're not eligible to receive it, we hate giving away food stamps, welfare. Everyone thinks we pay too much tax, and doesn't want the state to do anything. But then we complain that the government isn't solving all our problems with all the money we aren't paying in taxes. To avoid all the complaints from directly taxing everyone, we tax alcohol and tobacco (in addition to income), but we don't tax corporate profits or rich people, and have a small sales tax compared to the EU.
America actually has a bit of a crisis of food. Tens of millions of families go hungry every year in the US. Yet we export hundreds of billions of dollars worth of (mostly) feed grain and corn. It's not that we're too proud to take hand-outs, we'd just rather let our neighbors starve.
I believe there is a term for this, "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
A lot of well off people in India and USA automatically think of poor people as losers or without agency. They then propose that government must help them. Guess what, other than a small fraction of poor people most DO NOT want that help. They would rather prefer to do what they want to do. Poor people do not want your food, clothing and shelter, they have their own desires. We can not possibly know what they are.
India is an extremely social country and lockdowns have much bigger costs for people. If people are angry and fed up and willing to risk their lives, I can understand. I do not think assurance of food or money per month will keep them indoors.
What we need is some humility to recognize that just because someone else has less money than we do, that does not reduce their self worth or gives us the right to know "what they need".
PS. Shortage of food was not a problem in India during last lockdown it is not a problem today either. Food Corporation of India has a record stockpile of rice right now.